LOL at Mitt. Topic

Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/25/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):Just like a good Dem. You always have to tell everyone else what your boy is talking about, so now you presume to tell us what Mitt is talking about.

Oh, and you do realize that they only have to pressurize for certain altitudes, right? You're aware of that, right? It is only essential over 10,000 ft. You know that right? Because it appears that from your initial post you were unaware of that. So, do you want me to tell everyone what I think you meant by that first post? Do you?

But yes, keep up with your distraction that Mitt doesn't understand aircraft pressurization.

Actually I was unaware of that. So too, apparently, was Boeing.

"Research by the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that these cabin altitudes (5400 feet) are safe for healthy individuals, and because pressure changes in aircraft cabins are very gradual, most travelers do not suffer adverse effects.

However, if you suffer from an obstructive pulmonary disease, an upper respiratory or sinus infection, or certain cardiovascular conditions, there could be some risk at these cabin altitudes."
Also...

" In some individuals, particularly those with heart or lung disease, symptoms (of hypoxia) may begin as low as 5,000 feet (1,500 m), although most passengers can tolerate altitudes of 8,000 feet (2,400 m) without ill effect. At this altitude, there is about 25% less oxygen than there is at sea level."

Keep on making up those "facts", and then trying to make people look dumb for not knowing them.
Hey, did you know that the penguin is the fastest land mammal? Did you? You're aware of that, right? You know that right? Because it appears that from your initial post you were unaware of that.

But regardless, what are you suggesting? That planes should be designed so that windows open up to 10,000 feet, but then lock down once that magic altitude is reached? Sounds safe to me.

Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of the word "essential".

What am I suggesting? Perhaps you should read the previous emails. You know, the ones written by the guy who is claiming someone else doesn't know how planes work. And no, I am not suggesting what you claim I was suggesting. But, again, it's just easier to not address an actual argument, and instead construct a strawman.

Actually I agree: we do seem to have different definitions of "essential".

At 9000ft, the standard barometric pressure is 74 kPa (554 mmHg). This means that there is 73% of the oxygen available at sea level.
The AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual) recommends supplemental O2 above 10,000 feet during the day and above 5,000 feet during the night (when breathing slows).

I still don't see how you can defend a claim about windows on planes not opening. Even if he meant while on the ground (which based on the context is a stretch), having the option to open windows creates a whole new set of problems for when you're in the air.

So what exactly was your point about pressurization not being essential below 10,000 feet? How is that relevant?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/27/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):If you take over at the top of a peak it is hard to make things better.

If you take over at the bottom of a crash it should be easy to make things better.

The physics of the economy want to bring things to the middle.

So is a president who gets the country to the top of the peak not as good as the next president who only makes things a little bit worse?

Each President must be judged on his own record.

If you take over when things are good and you keep them good, or even lose a little you are doing ok.

If you take over at the bottom and you keep things the same and make them a little worse you are not doing ok.

Obama took over at the low point, and made things worse.

He over spent on massive programs that did little. He shut off capital to business. He allowed energy prices to skyrocket.

He doesnt understand how the system works so his solutions are illogical. The left would rather ride a dying horse than let the other guy try to fix the problem!

So by your definition swampy yer saviour W was the worst president of all time. After all he took over from Clinton who had a budget surplus and the economy was as hot as ever and by the time he was done the country (and world) was in the 2nd worst depression of all time.

Refute that beeyatch!

Oh, and BTW Obamas job numbers are 2 and change pts better then when he took over. So how can you say his policies have made the situation worse?

BTW, I am still waiting for your explanation on what created this depression if it werent for de-regulation??? any answer for that too???

greeny..Swamp will say that what happened when Bush was Pres. was just part of a normal cycle and he is not responsible. And any gain on Obama's part is also part of a cycle and not to his credit. he dows get the blame for it not going up faster. Also, Swamp will say that jobs are not that important. It's unemployment that we have to be watching. And that is Obama's fault because of "uncertainty" from the job creators.

Do I have that right, Swamp?

Swamp, what will you say about democracy when your boy Mitt goes down in flames? The Mall will have spoken?

So by your definition swampy yer saviour W was the worst president of all time. After all he took over from Clinton who had a budget surplus and the economy was as hot as ever and by the time he was done the country (and world) was in the 2nd worst depression of all time.

Greeny, that is a gotcha statement, and swampy will not reply to those, thank you.

Actually I have asked Swamp to reply to numerous questions, and he has yet to. I think JimL is right, Swampy simply doesnt reply to gotcha questions. He knows he has been bested. Good on ya Swamp to admit the left is smarter then the right.